Ahh, okay. As long as it doesn't need the clients to be ssl aware.

On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 10:48:44PM +0300, Markus wrote:
> >Don't use stunnel, use ssh, and forward the ports. Stunnel just creates
> >an HTTPS connection, right?
> 
> >From Stunnel's man page
> (http://www.stunnel.org/faq/stunnel.html#description):
> The stunnel program is designed to work as SSL encryption wrapper between
> remote clients and local (inetd-startable) or remote servers. The concept is
> that having non-SSL aware daemons running on your system you can easily set
> them up to communicate with clients over secure SSL channels.
> 
> Would ssh port forwarding be better method?
-- 
Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to